Jump to content

Phoenix_jz

Beta Testers
  • Content count

    6,874
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1943
  • Clan

    [HINON]

Community Reputation

2,131 Superb

About Phoenix_jz

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Birthday 02/02/1999
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Ammiraglio di 1° Divisione Incrociatori Pesanti
    -Italian Heavy Cruiser Ace-
    -Punk Rocker-

Recent Profile Visitors

2,939 profile views
  1. I never went to high up in IJN DDs, so I'm of limited use, but I find that compensating for the enemy's manuevers tends to help get hits. If you fire at the grey line, the torpedoes will only ever but if the enemy keeps the same course and speed. Typically, though, players will manuever to avoid when they spot the torpedoes, in one of two ways. 1) Turning out - hopefully they do this, it's the worse option. This extends the time to target, although not by much, so a normally aimed spread can still get hits - but the majority of the fish will still end up behind the target. To take advantage of the increased time to target, you'll have to launch further ahead. 2) They turn in and possibly cut their speed - typically the best strategy to avoid torpedoes, to counter this you have to fire before the grey line, to compensate for the fact they're not going to be where the line says they'll be after they turn.
  2. Dasha being added as commander

    We managed to go from Dasha to Anime in one page... I'm not even sure if impressive is the right word for that... Well, only one thing for it;
  3. American Steel

    Interesting, I've never once heard of a planned or even considered upgrade to the Iowa's armament that would see it use the 18"/47 Mk.A. I'm curious, when was this planned? I know there consideration for the gun for slower designs, but not the ones like the Iowa we know, and I though they were completely thrown out in favor of the 16" Mk.7 when it came to the Montana-class. That being said, because of the prohibitory weight, something like Iowa could only hope to take 5 or 6 of the 18"/47, and Montana only 7 or 8. In-game, while the gun would be very powerful, it would be more of a downgrade. Your raw damage would be insanely high, somewhere around 15500, and have absurdly high penetration - basically, nothing it going to resist your shells. However with so few guns, even if we ignored the hit to rate of fire, your damage output is going to drop like a rock, and you're going to overpen the crap out of anything that isn't a battleship. At the same time, you also lack the same overmatch of Yamato's 460mm guns, so you're really not overcoming that major advantage that Yamato's guns have in-game. To be totally honest, you're actually turning the Iowa's into weaker battleships with such an upgrade. Having more of the 16" Mk.7's is the better armament, and that's always been the case when it comes to the advantages of the American high-tier BBs. You get a large number of very good, powerful guns for their caliber. Yamato's only got three quarters of the gun count of Montana, and her only real edge is the overmatch factor. There's a very good reason why Montana is favored over any other battleship for clan battles - she's just a solid ship with lots of very solid guns. You're better off sticking with the 16"/50's.
  4. It's also worth noting that Germany rather lacked the ship's to escort anything across the channel, or U-boats to pose a threat. If anything, Germany's submarine branch was ratger pathetically small when it went into the war, nevermind the torpedo issue. In late 1940 when Italian submarines arrived in Bordeaux, this force alone (BETASOM) outnumbered the German U-boat fleet in the Atlantic. The ability of the U-boats to prevent to British destroyer flotillas from wiping out the freighters will be negligible, and they lack the surface ships to act as an effective escort, nevermind keep the channel open. British destroyers, light craft, and submarines will have a field day.
  5. Naval and Defense News (cont.)

    The Tempest project should be interesting, as it will be a direct competitior to the the Franco-German project. It seems that Britian is already making eyes at the Swedes to join, and Italy looks to be a likely partner as well. It would certainly be more advantageous than working with the Franco-German Axis, especially given how many Italian companies will already be involved in the project even if the Government looks away - https://www.analisidifesa.it/2018/07/londra-annuncia-il-tempest-erede-un-po-anche-italiano-del-typhoon/
  6. Thanks for the Ship Devs

    We get paid? I never set up a direct deposit, how come they never mailed my check? it's been a good long while since beta... Anyways, not sure if this is just feeding a troll at this point... to put it bluntly (but still most assuredly to be ignored), no, testers do not get paid by WG, and nor are they currently compensated for past services. Alpha and Beta testers received unique, very low-tier reward ships for their efforts in testing way back when, and that was all. And that quite simply is it. No favorable RNG when it comes to containers, no special discounts on ships or premium time, no increased reward. Arkansas Beta was the only thing I ever got for being a Beta tester, full stop and period. There is no payments, either monetary or with in-game goods.
  7. WoWs roadmap 2018-2020, (maybe)

    I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know NOTHING
  8. Perhaps some, but Averof would be difficult. Being essentially a modified Pisa-class armored cruiser, she'd face the same issues as other pre-dreadnoughts and armored cruisers.
  9. Mussolini's jump into war was to get in on negotiations, and didn't expect the war to last at the rate it was going. Ironically, and infuriating to him, his popularity actually increased at this point due to the fact he hadn't put Italy into the war - of course that all changed when he decided that a few thousand lives were worth a seat at the table. So I wouldn't put it past him to throw Italy into the war even earlier if he knew German troops were on the British isles. That being said, I think the threat would be too much. I don't think Britian could tolerate the threat of having a continental power that strong, Germany having subdued France and being allied with Italy, regardless of them being in the war or not. The threat is too obvious, and needs to be dealt with while it still can. And that would start with destroying the German forces in Britian, which I don't think would be too hard. Whatever did get across is going to have a hard time getting supplies through - fat Ju 52's won't last long in the channel's skies, and I doubt much in the war of supplies will make it by sea. And all this is supplying whatever forces survive the landing attempt - I'm pretty skeptical of the airborne troops getting through in any large numbers. The RAF hasn't been hurt bely the Battle of Britain yet, and Germany's not going to be able to to prevent the RN from sweeping the channel.
  10. I created my first Wikipedia article

    Nice! Also, thanks a lot for helping with the armor section for Littorio!
  11. Perhaps? I've been reading through Friedman's gunnery book, skipping around a bit, and it seems that some nations, like the French, were very focused on the ability to fire on maneuvering enemy ships while maneuvering heavily themselves, and it would seem based on comments elsewhere (Friedman's chapter on the Italian navy isn't the most useful, being pretty short, lacking detail, and wrong in several assumptions) the Italians were focusing on the same thing. The British, I'm not sure about. So it would seem likely that they more than anyone else would put a premium on being able to turn your turrets faster, not only to track the enemy ships, but also the counter the turning of yours. That being said, I don't think the turning rates of many cruisers would be much over 2º/sec, if at all? Unfortunately, few authors seems interested in talking about the handling data of ships, especially when it comes to ships smaller than BBs.
  12. I'd have to check Friedman's book and see if he discusses the American 8" gun behavior - I managed to get it fairly cheaply in an e-book form not long ago, still working my way through it though however. As far as gun spacing, I checked my copy of Campbell's, and it didn't mention any additional spacing for the guns - in fact it actually specifically cited 46" for the New Orleans turrets, however it also includes a ? before the figure, so I'm not 100% confident in that number. I wonder, perhaps the greater accuracy had to do with greater strength of the mountings? The New Orleans all used real turrets, after all, compared to the earlier CA's, and they were much better armored and overall heavier (290t vs 254t, or 14-15% heavier). That may have done a significant amount to help dispersion. I base this off the early Italian 6" mounts - the original mount, the M1926, had poor dispersion stemming from being in a common cradle, excessive velocity, and the light construction of the turret itself. The succeeding M1929 first used on the Cadorna-class was much improved, with a higher rate of fire and being much more reliable, but also used reduced ballistics. It shared the common cradle and light construction, however, and suffered as a result. The next class (Montecuccoli) used the same gun and ballistics, but used a considerably heavier turret (mainly due to the thicker armor), and this cut down on the poor dispersion experienced by the Cadorna-class. Since the increased weight helped fight dispersion in the Italian CLs, perhaps the same would be true for the switch from mounts to true turrets in the American CA's? That's a good point, and would certainly explain why the 'Pacific' cruisers had lesser traverse rates than their European counterparts. No need to waste weight on having more traverse speed than you need, especially given that the envisioned role of these ships in fleet combat seems to have been supplementing both nation's (US and Japan's) battleships in the battle line.
  13. Perhaps, but I'm not very confident in it. Even ignoring JB's weird reload boost consumable, she's just an outright better ship than Vanguard. Her AA is a lot more powerful, higher in dps and range - especially in regards to her DP guns (JB will have the best AA in-game), which are also a more potent secondary battery. She's also faster, with considerably more powerful guns.
  14. Why Does WG Adamantly Refuse the Tillman BBs?

    Holy thread Necro, Batman! Anyways, of the Japanese line, Kawachi, Kongo, Fuso, Nagato, and Yamato are all completed ships, Amagi was laid down and never completed, while Myogi and Izumo were never laid down at all. Of the American line, all except Montana were completed, while Montana was not actually laid down as far as I know. For the Germans, everything up to Bismarck was completed, while H-39 (tier IX) was laid down but scrapped not long after, and the tier X is a design made up by WG. For Britian, tier III to VII are all completed and serving designs, Monarch is made up by WG, Lion was laid down, and Conq was made up by WG, a mashup if multiple designs. France only has Courbet, Bretagne, and Richelieu as completed, serving ships. Normandie was laid down, while Lyon was only paper (and heavily modified by WG, like Normandie). Alsace is only paper too, while the tier III and X are WG designs, III being a modified Danton-class pre-dread.
  15. Thanks! As for Vanguard - the issue is, she just won't work for the tier IX FreeXP slot. She's just not strong enough as a ship. She's got a nice amount of health and a monstrous amount of mid-range AA, but that's all she has going for her. She's got an armor profile slightly inferior to KGV (tier VII), the WWI guns of Warspite (VI), and the DP guns of Conqueror - which have nice range but crap DPS and are terrible in the role of a secondary battery. She's probably capable of tier VIII with enough buffs, but tier IX is too far beyond her. I'd love to use a real ship if I could, but Vanguard just isn't strong enough.
×